Recent Updates

Last post
Notes from the biomass will continue at nftb.net. My...
spitshine - 2006-07-16 13:11
Stubborn
OK, you got me. While technically not blogging at the...
spitshine - 2006-07-07 10:55
Greetings from another...
Greetings from another HBS-founder (media-ocean.de)....
freshjive - 2006-06-15 20:06
HBS manifesto will be...
Hi there! I am one of the hard blogging scientsts. We...
020200 - 2006-06-15 18:13
Latter posts - comment...
Things to do when you're not blogging: Taking care...
spitshine - 2006-04-29 18:46

About this blog

About content and author

A few posts of interest

The internet is changing... Powerpoint Karaoke
Quantifying the error...

Link target abbreviations

[de] - Target page is in German
[p] - Paywall - content might not be freely available
[s] - Subscription required
[w] - Wikipedia link
More...

Search

 

Archive

December 2005
Sun
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Sat
 
 
 
 
 2 
 3 
 5 
 6 
 7 
 8 
 9 
10
11
12
13
14
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
26
27
28
30
31
 

Credits

vi knallgrau GmbH

powered by Antville powered by Helma


Creative Commons License

xml version of this page
xml version of this page (summary)

twoday.net AGB

Wikipedia vs. Britannica

Wikipedia received a lot of criticism recently regarding its quality. Surprisingly, a peer review analysis of Wikipedia and Britannica in Nature finds Wikipedia at a higher quality.

However, an expert-led investigation carried out by Nature — the first to use peer review to compare Wikipedia and Britannica's coverage of science — suggests that such high-profile examples are the exception rather than the rule.
The exercise revealed numerous errors in both encyclopaedias, but among 42 entries tested, the difference in accuracy was not particularly great: the average science entry in Wikipedia contained around four inaccuracies; Britannica, about three.

Never tried the Britannica myself but after my recent, frustrating attempts to enhance some articles in Wikipedia myself I am about to ask whether Britannica is really that poor?
Tobi (guest) - 2005-12-16 13:26

Frustrating?

So what was frustrating in your attempts to contribute to Wikipedia? Do you still contribute despite these experiences? (I hope so...)

spitshine - 2005-12-20 15:45

Some of the scientific entries are quite OK I found several that were really poor. My first attempot to enhance one me into an edit war straight away with people with "beliefs" and too much time on their hands. But you're right, I should continue
Anoymoose (guest) - 2005-12-18 20:45

I love Wikipedia

I love wikipedia, even when it's wrong.

Check out this joint wikipedia/google search thingy
I made for a home page.

Trackback URL:
http://binf.twoday.net/stories/1284177/modTrackback

Elsewhere...

Status

Online for 4640 days
Last update: 2006-07-16 13:11

Blogs
Conferences
Databases
Journals
Meta
Misc.
Papershow
Patents
PPI
Predictions
Publishing
The young PI
Useful tools
Profil
Logout
Subscribe Weblog